Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 262, § 29 (2026)

Witness fees

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 29. The fees for attending as a witness before the general court, the supreme judicial court, the superior court, the land court, a probate court or court of insolvency, a district court, county commissioners, a trial justice, a referee, an arbitrator, the division of industrial accidents or the board of conciliation and arbitration, or on any other occasion for which no express provision is made, or allowed to persons, except the debtor, who are examined under section eighty-two of chapter two hundred and sixteen, unless fraudulent conduct is charged and proved against them, shall be six dollars a day, and ten cents a mile for travel out and home; provided, that if the witness has a usual place of business or employment in the city or town where the court trial or hearing is held, travel shall be reckoned out and to such place of business or employment, and not out and home. Each witness shall certify in writing the amount of his travel and attendance.

Any person who at the request of the attorney general or a district attorney, for the purpose of assisting him in the investigation of any matter within his jurisdiction as such attorney general or district attorney, attends the attorney general at any place, or the office of such district attorney at a courthouse, shall receive the fees provided in the preceding paragraph for a witness attending the superior court and subject to the same provisions, except that the certificate required by the last sentence of said paragraph shall be accompanied by a voucher signed by the attorney general or the district attorney that such fees are due said person for his attendance as provided in this paragraph.

Expenses incurred by witnesses summonsed on behalf of a defendant determined to be indigent, as well as expenses incurred by witnesses summonsed on behalf of the commonwealth, as such expenses are determined in accordance with this section, shall be paid by the commonwealth after such witness has certified with the court the amount of his travel and attendance.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1981–2019 · leading case: Waldman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 597 N.E.2d 404 (Mass. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Waldman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 597 N.E.2d 404 (Mass. 1992). · cites it 8× “The plaintiff argues that the judge erred in awarding expert witness fees in excess of the witness fees provided by G. L. c. 262, § 29, 2 and in awarding deposition costs without finding that the deposition costs were “reasonably necessary.”

Flesner v. Technical Commc'ns Corp., 575 N.E.2d 1107 (Mass. 1991). “, G. L. c. 262, § 29 (1990 ed.) (providing compensation and travel costs reimbursement for any person who attends the Attorney General or the offices of a district attorney for the purpose of assisting an investigation); G.”

Styller v. Nat'l Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 128 N.E.3d 612 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “Similarly, taxable costs do not ordinarily include expert fees and expenses except as nominally allowed, pursuant to G. L. c. 262, § 29. Waldman , 413 Mass. at 322 , 597 N.”

Waldman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 579 N.E.2d 480 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991). · cites it 2× “P, 25, as amended, 376 Mass. 949 (1979). The plaintiff questions the court’s authority to tax substantial expert witness fees, as contrasted with the nominal witness fees taxable under G.”

Johnson v. Modern Cont'l Constr. Co., 731 N.E.2d 96 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000). “320, 321-324 (1992), which holds that, in the absence of a special authorizing statute, contractual provision, or stipulation, a prevailing party may not recover expert witness fees and costs beyond the limited allowance in G. L. c. 262, § 29. Consequently, the judge should not…”

New Palm Gardens, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm'n, 420 N.E.2d 8 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). “The commission made no subsidiary finding as to the knowledge of the licensee, and the only finding on this subject is the conclusory one quoted in the penultimate paragraph of n.”

Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp., 825 F. Supp. 361 (D. Mass. 1993). “Nonetheless, Data General may recover expert witness fees at the statutory rate permitted under Mass.Gen.L. ch. 262, § 29. Waldman v. American Honda Motor Co.”

Connors v. Howard Johnson Co., 571 N.E.2d 427 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991). “The plaintiff does not challenge the authority of the court to tax such fees, as opposed to the statutory witness fees taxable under G. L. c. 262, § 29. See Goulet v. Whitin Mach.”

City of Boston v. United States Mineral Prods. Co., 641 N.E.2d 132 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2× “The plaintiffs, who are the city of Boston, the school committee of Boston, and the collector-treasurer of Boston, have appealed from the order of the judge on the grounds that expert witness fees, as matter of law, are limited to the attendance fees and mileage charges…”

C.W. Keller & Assocs., Inc. v. Cullen, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 504 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2× “00 per day in accordance with G.L.c. 262, §29; Waldman v. American Honda Motor Co.”

Atuna v. Bergollo, 18 Mass. L. Rptr. 123 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2004). “507 ) (“[E]xpert fees, including the preparation of a report for review by an expert and out-of-state travel of an expert, is not authorized. The costs of legal research are deemed to be within the purview of counsel fees, as are the costs of private investigation, and likewise…”

Zabilansky v. Am. Bldg. Restoration Prods., Inc., 18 Mass. L. Rptr. 596 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2004). “262, §29 expressly authorizes taxation of an attorneys expense of traveling to a deposition; the operator’s cost of playing an audio-visual deposition at trial; the transcription of medical records; Daubert hearing transcripts; a witness or deponent’s hotel expenses; or a…”

Show all 14 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.